How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure • Hacker News Board

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#71

Post by qqqwerty » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:36 AM UTC

allovernow wrote: post #31

>scientists whose ideas fell outside the dogma recounted how, for decades, believers in the dominant hypothesis suppressed research on alternative ideas: They influenced what studies got published in top journals, which scientists got funded, who got tenure, and who got speaking slots at reputation-buffing scientific conferences Not quite in topic, but Is it really such a stretch to acknowledge that the same forces i…

I will acknowledge that those forces may be in play. But I will also ask you to acknowledge that oil extraction has and continues to make certain people, companies, and governments immensely wealthy and powerful and that those groups are very interested in keeping the status quo. Those people/companies/governments have the power and resources to finance research into climate change that would support their narrative. And by all accounts they have been doing that. But despite those efforts the scientific consensus supporting climate change has remained.

So yeah, science isn't perfect and we have seen cases in the past where group think has held back progress and discovery. But we have also seen plenty of examples of corporations and trade groups bending and influencing the scientific narrative to their benefit (see the low-fat discussion in this thread). And in the case of climate change, the most monetarily interested party is literally the wealthiest industry in the history of the world. So I think it is safe to say that the current consensus is facing plenty of scrutiny.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#72

Post by frogger23123 » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:36 AM UTC

ivalm wrote: post #57

g42gregory wrote: post #47

An honest question: How does this compare to the group-think in the climate change/global warming research? Are we similarly rejecting funding to any research that does not fit into the common consensus? The fact that we call some people "climate change deniers" tells me that we have an unhealthy dynamics going on there. Will it take 30 years to get to the same point?

> The fact that we call some people "climate change deniers" tells me that we have an unhealthy dynamics going on there 1. Climate change is observable, it doesnt rely on a theory, just measurements. Nonetheless there are a bunch of people trying to discredit what is essentially a very well established observation. 2. Genesis of climate change (ie is it anthropogenic) is not a direct observable, but looking at concen…

Straw man. It's not black and white. Some are skeptical of the _degree_ to which the claims are true. Go watch Al Gore's 2006 documentary to see a good example of alarmist hyperbole. Some would say this movement has been hijacked by those seeking political and economic power, by those who don't care about the environment. Some would say the projected outcome is 10x exaggerated, and are suspicious of proposed "solutions" such as increase tax, transfer trillions of dollars to third world countries, setup carbon trading schemes to make investment bankers rich, and so on.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#73

Post by superpermutat0r » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:37 AM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #46

vixen99 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how do you define 'original'? in 1956 the American Heart Association announced that a 'diet which included large amounts of butter, lard, eggs, and beef would lead to coronary heart disease'. Not just meat! See also the enormously influential study and conclusion by Ancel Keys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys . His seven countries study stressed the dangers of cholesterol and fat. It's interesting that K…

Fred Kummerow died at 102. And unlike Keys got to eat eggs and butter every morning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Kummerow

People living over 100 years old obviously have huge genetic factors that allow them to have unhealthy habits (or at least unhealthy for the normal person). I mean, there are people over 100 that smoke every day.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#74

Post by sillysaurusx » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:43 AM UTC

igorkraw wrote: post #53

sillysaurusx wrote: post #35

The truth has a habit of shining through if you are encouraged to keep asking questions and follow up on them. The point is that people are actively discouraged from asking questions and following up on them. People lose their careers and livelihoods for asking the wrong sorts of questions. Truth is no barrier to social backlash. In fact, questions that might be true tend to be the ones that get people the most heate…

On the specific topic of IQ and scientific racism, the "centrist" position of "just asking questions" has been a cloak for agendas and not caring about the truth for a while now. Exhibit A: https://mobile.twitter.com/Simon_Whitten/status/117331966332... Exhibit B, what happens when you actually dig into the science behind the most well known peddler of the IQ is real and important, therefore racism is actually not a…

A lot of your points are addressed explicitly by that twitter account. I would encourage you to spend some time reading through and examining the extensive studies being presented.

Believe me, I would love to dismiss it as a biased person and be done with it. But the truth seems to be nuanced.

Suppose tomorrow someone had concrete scientific evidence that climate change wasn't man-made. (It's a thought experiment, so humor me for a moment.) Do you think society at large would accept the evidence? Or would it be more along the lines of society tearing down whoever tried to present it?

EDIT: Excellent link, by the way. Thank you for pointing out https://twitter.com/Simon_Whitten/status/1173319663322841088.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#75

Post by melling » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:48 AM UTC

igorkraw wrote: post #20

ping_pong wrote: post #3

This is another example of group-think in scientific research. The same thing happened for decades where low fat diets were supposed to help for heart disease but that has only recently been reversed after decades of indoctrination. This happens all throughout scientific research, where science is supposed to be immune to this, but it's obviously not. So many things we take as gospel, only to be reversed decades late…

While I'm all for changing funding systems I want to point out that there fact we have these scandals is the system somewhat working . Similarly to how constant criticism of the government/large corporations isn't a sign of rot, but of a system where improvements are still possible -as long as someone is pointing out the problems you can fix them. And science is not supposed to be immune to this, the culture of scien…

Hopefully as China comes online, and eventually India, we’ll get a lot more research globally with more ideas.

In an earlier submission I made, Peter Thiel, etc discuss how global research is changing in general:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21906424

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#76

Post by rooundio » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:49 AM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #25

rooundio wrote: post #5

Unfortunately true for most scientific communities and the reason why the current academic system is badly broken and talented young minds decide to quit academia before even submitting a dissertation.

Talented young minds are mostly quitting because of terrible pay, inexperienced/cruel supervisors, long hours, gambling on tenure, and opportunities in private industry. The groupthink and publishing pressure are also problems, but they're very secondary to hellish career conditions.

The reasons you raise are very true (I have been there), but most of them are mere symptoms of something deeper. I believe the root causes are exactly the kind of social dynamics discussed in the article.

Terrible pay / other opportunities: Even at Ass. Prof. level pay is not so terrible. Sure, you won't get rich, but for most in academia that never has been a goal and would not matter.

Long Hours: That also mostly would not be a problem, as long as you would be able to do what you truly like.

Cruel supervisors: Here it's getting interesting. Why do you think that is? My hypothesis is that people become cruel if they don't like what they do. They basically become grumpy old men at the age of 40, because they always have to fight. Fight for money, fight against reviewers, fight internal department politics. Supervisors become cruel because they secretly hate their jobs, or better: the jobs the system makes them do.

Gambling on Tenure: If you have the "right" supervisor in the "right" field (read: a good networker in the current hype topic) your chances are actually not that bad. But as soon as you do something that is either currently not on the radar of the community, or you do something that is even controversial, you get yourself into a fight - which as a young researcher you will lose. In academia you can only make it, if you are well connected and the community carries you there. Group think again. After years in the system I believe it all boils down to that: social dynamics and group think.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#77

Post by jajag » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:52 AM UTC

allovernow wrote: post #31

>scientists whose ideas fell outside the dogma recounted how, for decades, believers in the dominant hypothesis suppressed research on alternative ideas: They influenced what studies got published in top journals, which scientists got funded, who got tenure, and who got speaking slots at reputation-buffing scientific conferences Not quite in topic, but Is it really such a stretch to acknowledge that the same forces i…

There's certainly evidence of bias in climate science, but if anything it's been towards understating the effect [1]

[1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists...

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#78

Post by Frondo » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:57 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #61

dhimes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extremely important point. Since I was a grad student, there have been at least 5 monumental "findings" in physics: 1. A spinning top weighs less if it spins one way than if it spins the other 2. A "fifth force," IIRC it was linked to baryons 3. The climate is warming, not (as people thought) cooling 4. Superconductivity can be achieved at high (liquid Ln2) temperatures 5. Fusion can be achieved at low (ro…

AFAIK at no point in time were there more publications predicting cooling than publications predicting warming. It was just the popsci media that almost exclusively predicted another ice age.

Thank you. Yes. The "they said global cooling" myth needs to be retired.

I did just a quick google search because it's 5am and I need to sleep soon, but this looks like a good history of the global cooling thing:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-gl...

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#79

Post by etaioinshrdlu » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:59 AM UTC

tempsy wrote: post #13

Hasn’t Alzheimer’s been referred to as diabetes type III? It’s inflammation of the brain, and eating a low inflammation diet (low carb, no sugar, fasting) is the best thing one can do to drastically reduce getting it.

I remember seeing that but I really suspect it's a gross oversimplification and not likely to be very explanatory. Almost like science clickbait. But not saying there isn't some connection....

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#80

Post by TrackerFF » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 10:01 AM UTC

Is Alzheimer's on the rise, or are are simply more people getting diagnosed with it due to increased life expectancy?

A quick google search yields avg. age of diagnosis to be 80 years; 50 years ago life expectancy in the western world was 70 years, so a bunch of people would've probably passed from Heart Diseases and stroke back then, before getting to the point of dementia.

So it's pretty reasonable to assume that more research went towards things like heart diseases, etc. the past 50 years, than towards dementia and the likes.

But now, as we see a steady decline in those things (or at least them being the leading cause of death), we see more longevity-related diseases, like cancer and dementia.

What I'm trying to get at here is: Yes, maybe there have been ruling forces in academia and research that have stopped alternative theories, but wouldn't a simpler explanation be that there have simply been more pressing issues up until now, and we're now seeing a rise in things like dementia, due to having deal with those previous problems.

We have dementia in one side of our family, even though most have gotten it in their late 70s / early 80s, so I obviously hope they come up with something - which I have no doubt will happen, the next decades.